If we codify Roe…SCOTUS will still say its a state right to ban, right?

[Stormy Daniels]

All the talk about legislating Roe is horse shit. It doesn't even make sense. It's not possible. How would that bill read?

A doctor must perform an abortion on a woman who.... _________________

Fill in the blank. What's that supposed to say? Does a little dance? Makes a little love? Gets down tonight? What do you all expect to happen? That doctors all of sudden be saddled with an affirmative obligation to attempt an abortion on every woman they encounter, only being alleviated of the requirement if the woman bites the doctor's finger off?

How do you identify who would be obligated to perform these procedures? Is the optometrist going to start whipping out the speculum?

Even if you manage to draft 500 pages to cover every possible scenario and nuance imaginable, do you morons not comprehend the political disasters that would develop from legislatively mandating abortion!?!? And all for what? So it can end up in the Supreme Court where all the same justices eagerly find that mandating abortion is conspicuously absent from the enumerated powers of Congress?! Did you enjoy the first loss so much you want to do it a second time?

Why the fuck are you people so god damned stupid? Pull the MSNBC dildo out of your ass. You asshats are just as bad as the Donald Trump asshats who still want another recount of the audits of the recounts of the audits of the recounts of the 2020 election.

 

[Jets]

Why would the conservative members of the SC allow a federal codification of Roe to stand, if they just ruled it belongs under state purview?

 

[d0gbreath]

Yes, they could ignore the federal mandate.

When Carter mandated a 55 MPH freeway speed nationwide, states only went along with it to keep receiving federal highway funds.

But, there really is no reason to speculate. The entire reason for Roe V Wade decision was to relieve politicians from having to make a public vote on the matter.

I don't care who is in Congress, very few politicians are willing to risk a public vote on such a divisive topic.

That was actually president Nixon that signed the mandated 55 MPH speed limit nationwide into law.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No.

Federal laws are the supreme law of the land, state laws ‘banning’ abortion would be unenforceable.

And since the Senate represents the states, by codifying the right to privacy in Federal law, the states would have no justification to sue.

Moreover, claims that Congress lacks the authority to codify the right to privacy are devoid of merit, as the Court has upheld the constitutionality of Congress passing measures in defense of citizens’ rights, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, upheld by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.

Cities and states routinely violate the immigration laws, and nothing can be done.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Wrong. Once a law is passed by Congress, it is the law of the land. If any part of it fails Court scrutiny, it can simply be amended to get by that scrutiny. The court has no power to make law.

The Congress regulates the court, not the other way around.

Actually, it's more accurate to say the executive and legislative branches together can regulate the court. The way the system works, any two branches can over-ride the third. If congress gets out of line, the Courts can overrule it and the executive can direct the attorney general to enforce the court's rulings against congress.

 

[22lcidw]

Yes, they could ignore the federal mandate.

When Carter mandated a 55 MPH freeway speed nationwide, states only went along with it to keep receiving federal highway funds.

But, there really is no reason to speculate. The entire reason for Roe V Wade decision was to relieve politicians from having to make a public vote on the matter.

I don't care who is in Congress, very few politicians are willing to risk a public vote on such a divisive topic.

California citizens voted on same sex marriage and defeated it. The courts overturned it.

 

[B. Kidd]

How would a codified Roe be enforced? What Constitutional authority would be invoked to give such a law legal standing? Seems like a non-starter.

It is.
Bitches are outraged that Trump grabbed 'em by the, uhh, crotch.
He told Hillary during one of their debates that Roe would be overturned!

One more Trumpkin promise made and promise kept!!
He's an icon!!!

 

[Rogue AI]

Wrong. Once a law is passed by Congress, it is the law of the land. If any part of it fails Court scrutiny, it can simply be amended to get by that scrutiny. The court has no power to make law.

The Congress regulates the court, not the other way around.

What are you rambling about? Your silliness has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[basquebromance]

The right to choose should not be divvied up amongst states

The sinister practice of taking constitutional rights and allowing each state to decide the quality of your citizenship is wrong. Women deserve bodily autonomy. They deserve the right to make these choices

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Rogue AI]

The right to choose should not be divvied up amongst states

The sinister practice of taking constitutional rights and allowing each state to decide the quality of your citizenship is wrong. Women deserve bodily autonomy. They deserve the right to make these choices

What people 'deserve' and what the Constitution allows for are very different things. Women have bodily autonomy, in choosing to take the risk of getting pregnant or not having sex. Funny how that works, funny how you folks ignore that.

 

[basquebromance]

abortion is a decision that ought to be left to pregnant individuals and their medical providers, rather than a political football where ideology of the leader of a state can determine the quality of life for a woman and her ability to make the choices she needs.

 

[B. Kidd]

The right to choose should not be divvied up amongst states

The sinister practice of taking constitutional rights and allowing each state to decide the quality of your citizenship is wrong. Women deserve bodily autonomy. They deserve the right to make these choices

NOT ON OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL!!

 

[task0778]

If the Congress passes an abortion law that says abortion is legal up to a certain point in a pregnancy, that will negate any abortion ban in any state that has that law. Or if the Congress merely passes a law that says an abortion ban is illegal, just that alone would be good enough to prevent outlawing abortion, leaving it up to the states to decide when an abortion is legal. Which is pretty much what happened 50 years ago when Roe was announced, except the SC at that time also decided to tell us under what circumstances an abortion could be legal or not. Which actually isn't within their purview, and that might be what Chief Justice Roberts wanted to do, overturn just that part. At that time several states had abortion bans in place and the Roe decision effectively negated them and abortion became legal. That was a Court decision instead of federal legislation, but I see no reason why the Supreme Court would strike a new federal abortion law down if Congress can get it done. The Dobbs ruling never said abortion was illegal, they only said it was not a constitutional right. Which means if Congress does pass an abortion law, I do not see any grounds for the SC to negate it.

 

[Coyote]

The truth is that because of the science (ironically for libs, "The Party of Science" hahaha), people have grown a lot more uncomfortable with abortion. Generally people back it in the first trimester but not after, say, 15 weeks. So "codifying" Roe v Wade, which horrifyingly allowed abortion right up until birth, would be very difficult, if not next to impossible.

Actually it wouldn’t be. The courts consistently affirmed it but allowed states to restrict it after viability. You could codify it.

 

[fncceo]

California citizens voted on same sex marriage and defeated it. The courts overturned it.

No state can pass a law that has been deemed unconstitutional by the USSC. According to the latest SC ruling, Ogfell v Hodges, the 14th Amendment requires all states to grant Same-Sex marriages.

So, a CA law, even if voted by the citizens, that didn't allow S-S marriage would be unconstitutional.

However, now that the USSC has ruled that abortion isn't a Constitutionally protected right, a Federal government mandate to permit it could be essentially ignored by the states.